SC is imposing Rs. 1 lakh fine on Centre for “careless and callous attitude

New Delhi, Aug 17 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday said due to the inconsiderate and sloppy method of the Centre the company was placed in the list of infractions by mine owners, and had to endure humiliation and loss.

The court imposed one lakh in litigation costs on the CentreThe name of the company was listed in the list of coal block allottees who had their leases cancelled by the highest court in 2014.The Chief Justice N.V.Ramana and comprising justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli declared: "We are constrained to make specific observations on the behavior of the defendant no.1 -" UOI (Union of India).This is an instance in which a private entity was in compliance with all the laws and rules in the manner that was applicable, prior to investing large amounts of money in order to start a business.

" The highest court has ruled against the coal ministrys request for an additional levy to be added to the coal mined by the firm.It further stated: "In fact, it is evident from the circumstances of the matter that it was the respondent in the case of no.1 - UOI who didnt follow the law.of the law.However it was the private party who was liable for the consequences of the reckless and sloppy attitude of the respondent No.1 - UOI." Justice Kohli, who authored the decision for the benefit of the bench stated that to make matters worse for the petitioner the Centre submitted an affidavit to the highest court, including the petitioner in the list of mining owners who have been committing a crime in the light of its own illegal behavior "It did not perform the due diligence necessary to determine if the petitioner was allocated the mine by the legal procedure.In the wake of this careless, naive and inconsiderate method of the respondent number.1 - UOI the petitioner was left with a the consequences of shame and loss," said justice Kohli.BLA Industries Private Limited, the petitioner BLA Industries Private Limited was a petitioner to the top court in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution in protest against the Ministry of Coal, Union of India for including its name and the mining lease area in the schedules attached to the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance 2014 even though the screening committee established by the Ministry of Coal, had not assigned any coal blocks to the.In 2014 the apex court declared in 2014 that it had canceled the allotment of coal blocks-- Gotitoria (East and West) in Mahapani coalfields of Madhya Pradesh -- which were awarded to BLA Industries in response to a PIL claiming that the blocks were not allocated in a fair manner between 1993 and 2011.The PIL claimed that the blocks were granted without adhering strictly to the legal procedure in order to benefit businesses that were eligible.

The coal block owned by the company was also included on the list of coal blocks with the potential to be "saved" from being canceled upon the imposing of certain conditions and terms.The conditions also included the payment of an additional levy compensation amount of Rs 295 per MT of 295 Rs per MT for the allottees of the coal blocks of coal produced between September 25, 2014 until March 31, 2015.Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, instructed by Advocate Ayush Aggarwal representing BLA industries, argued that the incorrect addition of the name of his client on the list of 46 allottees of coal blocks and its mining lease area in the schedule attached to the Ordinance, as well as the incorrect inclusion of the name of the client in an annexure-1 filed in the name of the respondent No.1 - UOI in the highest court, has resulted in the cancellation or quashing of the lease which was granted in its favor "The petitioner was not the benefit of the screening committee route or of the Government Dispensation Route.It followed the proper procedure as per the MMDR Act/MC Rules making an application for the approval of lease directly to the respondent No.2.State Government (Madhya Pradesh) and only after the latter had reviewed the application and suggested it for approval to respondent No.1 UOI.UOI was the mining lease approved in favor of the petitioner." stated the counsel for the petitioner.

The UOI filed a contempt notice in which the petitioner is accused of being in the wilful disregard of the rulings of the top court that directed the payment of an additional levy in lieu of compensation of Rs 295 per MT to the allottees of coal blocks that was due to be paid on December 31 the 31st of December, 2014.The court of appeals said: "The upshot of the above-mentioned discussion is that respondent is not entitled to a refund of.1" UOI cannot claim the payment of an additional levie on the coal mined by the petitioner out of the mine in question.Any such demand made by the respondent No.1 - UOI is hereby dismissed and put aside.The writ petition is granted in the above-mentioned terms.Contempt Petitiona.is dismissed as unworthy".The highest court ruled that the distribution of the coal block to petitioner was not in violation of the procedure outlined in the MMDR Act and the MC Rules "The petitioner wasnt allocated the coal block by the Screening Committee Route or the Central Government Dispensation Route, this was not emphasized by the respondent No.1 1.UOI at the proper time which led to painting petitioner with the same brush as the other allottee" stated the top court.The bench further stated: "We find force in the argument made by lawyer for the petitioner that the lease to mine in favor of the petitioner wasnt affected by fraud as was the case of the other allottees." The Supreme Court ordered the Centre to pay Rs.1 lakh as legal costs to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.ss/pgh .